Thank you both very much for being here. It's really important in terms of clarifying how the act is interpreted.
Many of the questions I had in mind have been covered, but perhaps you can tell me a bit more about section 63, to do with the inquiry, because, as you said in your response to Mr. Fortin, they're not silos.
I know you can't speculate, but what would be the normal process of naming a commissioner to head the inquiry and so on? Would there normally be further information provided within that edict that would lay it out, or would the commissioner be in the same position we are, relying on a section in the act?